Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[TemplarKormac]

Oh brother.

 

[bodecea]

This has nothing to do with freedom of religious opinion as NO ONE has stopped Robertson from fully expressing his religious opinions.

True they haven't but more a relishing by those on the left that want to silence him...Can YOU say GLADD?

Sure, I knew ya could.

*IDIOT*

Where is the lawsuit from GLADD trying to stop Robertson from speaking?

 

[bodecea]

Reverse it and see what happens.

A hunk, an Actor portraying a lady's man, a Super Spy, a tough guy in a TV Series comes out of the closet and the TV Network and the Show's Producers fire him because they feel that they can't have a flaming fag portraying a James Bond type of Lady's man in a TV Series.

He'd sue, and he'd win.

What amazes me about liberal scum is the FACT that you people are THE most intolerant bigots in the world and are just simply too stupid to see it.

Can't smell your own shit.

First of all, you can't fire someone because they're gay or because they're christian but you CAN fire someone because they ran their mouth in an interview in a way that drummed up unwanted and negative controversy around a network, brand, etc.

I work in advertising and EVERY single public spokesperson will sign a contract that basically says "if you stir up unwanted controversy that harms the brand/company/network we have a right to terminate you". This is common practice, Edge. And why the heck wouldn't it be? Companies invest tens of millions of dollars into individuals and need to make sure their investments are sound and secure.

Phil shouldn't have ran his mouth in such a public way. They have the right to fire him if they want.

And since you implied I was bigot I'd like to know why..

.

I didn't imply shit.... You're a libturd, ergo you're fucking bigot.

But at least you're the brightest of a pretty dim crowd. Took you long enough to get to the heart of the matter (after I gave you several hints in the first few pages)

That's the trick, isn't it?

If Phil Robertson sues, can A&E show that he was overboard in his criticism of gay, butt-sex fags and smelly-snatch lezbos.

THAT is worth discussing. The rest of this thread is just idiots proving their idiocy.

What would Robertson sue based on?

 

[koshergrl]

Discrimination, what else?

 

[Edgetho]

First of all, you can't fire someone because they're gay or because they're christian but you CAN fire someone because they ran their mouth in an interview in a way that drummed up unwanted and negative controversy around a network, brand, etc.

I work in advertising and EVERY single public spokesperson will sign a contract that basically says "if you stir up unwanted controversy that harms the brand/company/network we have a right to terminate you". This is common practice, Edge. And why the heck wouldn't it be? Companies invest tens of millions of dollars into individuals and need to make sure their investments are sound and secure.

Phil shouldn't have ran his mouth in such a public way. They have the right to fire him if they want.

And since you implied I was bigot I'd like to know why..

.

I didn't imply shit.... You're a libturd, ergo you're fucking bigot.

But at least you're the brightest of a pretty dim crowd. Took you long enough to get to the heart of the matter (after I gave you several hints in the first few pages)

That's the trick, isn't it?

If Phil Robertson sues, can A&E show that he was overboard in his criticism of gay, butt-sex fags and smelly-snatch lezbos.

THAT is worth discussing. The rest of this thread is just idiots proving their idiocy.

What would Robertson sue based on?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 

[KevinWestern]

I didn't imply shit.... You're a libturd, ergo you're fucking bigot.

Explain why. I have nothing against Christians.

But at least you're the brightest of a pretty dim crowd.

I'd say the same about you.

If Phil Robertson sues, can A&E show that he was overboard in his criticism of gay, butt-sex fags and smelly-snatch lezbos.

THAT is worth discussing. The rest of this thread is just idiots proving their idiocy.

I can almost absolutely guarantee you that Phil at some point signed a contract with A&E that said something along the lines of "if you stir up public, unwanted controversy around the A&E network, we will have the right to terminate you".

Before you go calling everyone who disagrees with you "a bigot", are you absolutely sure Phil never signed anything of the sort?

.

 

[Pogo]

Geez.
The contract for ALL SAG members which the Robertson family have per A & E is the standard contract for all actors and entertainers that every network uses.
It offers protections such as royalties and many other things for actors.
And it contains everything and anything about how the employer can do what they want.
Even without a contract A & E COULD DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO.
They are his boss.
Geez folks, do not like it move to Cuba. Comrade Fidel has made workers all equal in misery there.

I doubt Robertson's a SAG member as a castmember of a TV show which is a finite term. Most likely an IC. SAG would only pertain to fulltime employees of A&E.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't imply shit.... You're a libturd, ergo you're fucking bigot.

Explain why. I have nothing against Christians.

But at least you're the brightest of a pretty dim crowd.

I'd say the same about you.

If Phil Robertson sues, can A&E show that he was overboard in his criticism of gay, butt-sex fags and smelly-snatch lezbos.

THAT is worth discussing. The rest of this thread is just idiots proving their idiocy.

I can almost absolutely guarantee you that Phil at some point signed a contract with A&E that said something along the lines of "if you stir up public, unwanted controversy around the A&E network, we will have the right to terminate you".

Before you go calling everyone who disagrees with you "a bigot", are you absolutely sure Phil never signed anything of the sort?

.

Wait... who are you calling "dim" perchance? Hmm?

 

[peach174]

I just feel like if A&E deems Phil's comments a threat to the public image of the company, they have a right to fire him. They own the show and can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

WHAT? Are you saying that when a movie is filmed in New York the "owners of the buildings" that the movie was filmed at now own the rights to the film?

Really?

NO !!!!!!!
Not at all you brain dead Dodo bird.

 

[KevinWestern]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

 

[Gadawg73]

Well they say something about it if it's a baker who refuses to bake for homo weddings...

Last time I looked I live in America.
So does Robertson in a right to work NON UNION state.
The First Amendment protections under The United States Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT limiting your speech, NOT your employer.
And that includes religious speech.
No one is stopping Robertson from saying a damn thing. He can say all he wants to.
Who has stopped Robertson?
Just today he was on stating NO ONE has stopped him from saying anything.

Let me see if I can help you out.....

The Constitution of The United States is not the Law. It is above the Law. It is what Laws are based on.

The US Constitution doesn't really deal with individuals on an individual basis, it deals with Laws. What kind of Laws can be passed and what kind of Laws shall be struck down by the Courts.

With me?

Good, now pay attention.....

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act sez:

[Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Try to keep up

Man are you ever dense.
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution is the highest form of THE LAW in the US legal system.
Is your claim that Robertson's civil rights have been denied?

You are bat shit crazy.
NO ONE stopped Robertson from expressing his religious beliefs.
And Moe, where under the civil rights act does it include "RELIGIOUS SPEECH"?
It says religion and A & E has not discriminated against him for being a southern Baptist.
Hell, I AM a southern Baptist.
That knows the law and the Constitution as one and the same.
And you claim I need "to keep up".

You would not last 10 seconds in my world.

 

[Edgetho]

Better yet:

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 

[Katzndogz]

I just feel like if A&E deems Phil's comments a threat to the public image of the company, they have a right to fire him. They own the show and can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

Duck Dynasty IS THE SHOW and A & E owns it.
Was a contract signed for the 2014 season?
But you are right, NO ONE has banned Robertson from anything to do with his religious opinions.

Duck Dynasty is the name of the show and all A&E can possibly own. They can't own the people. They don't own the set. They don't own anything used on the set. The contract was signed in 2010 and runs for five years. It is up for renewal in 2015. It has a year to go. A contract dispute would cover only the remaining year. The episodes for 2014 have already been filmed and Phil is in all of them but the last one. That leaves a single 2014 episode and all of 2015.

Say the entire family says they will not sign another five year contract. They don't have to. That's the end of the show. If they refuse to complete the final year of the contract they are in breach. Any number of things can happen. Phil could say "I've been suspended, now you don't have the right to film on my land or in my house anymore". There's really nothing A&E can do about that. They did suspend him. A&E could let everyone out of their contracts and hire actors to complete the remaining year, then A&E has to supply the set. Unlike most television shows, DD has no guest stars. Did you notice? There are no visitors.

This would not be an easy contract dispute to resolve because A&E really did set up the situation that they used to suspend Phil. This is dealing in bad faith and cause their entire claim of breach to fail. The Robertsons are not without defenses. A&E has a history of trying to change the portrayal of the family and misrepresent themselves. They wanted discussions of God and the exhibition of guns eliminated. The network introduced bleeps to make it appear that profanity was being used. It is alleged that the interview with GQ was a set up to give the network an excuse to punish Robertson. In that case, the suspension itself is illegal!

This could turn into an absolute legal nest of snakes.

 

[KevinWestern]

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

WHAT? Are you saying that when a movie is filmed in New York the "owners of the buildings" that the movie was filmed at now own the rights to the film?

Really?

NO !!!!!!!
Not at all you brain dead Dodo bird.

Well, explain. You just said that because Phil "owns the land" the show is filmed on he now "owns the show".

My argument is that A&E - and not Phil - owns the show.

Phil can leave A&E and start his own show, then he will own it. But at the present time he does not.

 

[Gadawg73]

Geez.
The contract for ALL SAG members which the Robertson family have per A & E is the standard contract for all actors and entertainers that every network uses.
It offers protections such as royalties and many other things for actors.
And it contains everything and anything about how the employer can do what they want.
Even without a contract A & E COULD DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO.
They are his boss.
Geez folks, do not like it move to Cuba. Comrade Fidel has made workers all equal in misery there.

I doubt Robertson's a SAG member as a castmember of a TV show which is a finite term. Most likely an IC. SAG would only pertain to fulltime employees of A&E.

Wrong, my daughter is a SAG member and has been in numerous TV shows and the movie The Blind Side.
And she has never been a full time employee of any TV show.
Even if he is not a SAG member the contracts are all the same the networks use. We see them all the time. All the same form contract they all use.

 

[Pogo]

Reporter Who Called Duck Dynasty Stars “Rural Jackasses” Once Suspended For Trolling

A liberal without ethics. Pretend you’re surprised.

Via LA Times:

Hiltzik Suspended - latimes.com

The L.A. Times has suspended Pulitzer-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik without pay, and discontinued both his column and his weblog, in response to the news that Hiltzik used psuedonyms on his blog and elsewhere to comment on Times-related matters, including his own work.

It changes nothing. libturds are the scum of the Earth. And I mean every goddamn, motherfucking one of you.

People are starting to catch on to the lying scum that you are.....

This has zero to do with Robertson or A&E. Irony of last line noted.

Still waiting.

 

[Edgetho]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

How many times I gotta tell you stupid fuckers this....?

Contracts DO NOT trump the law.

You CAN NOT change the law by Contract.

God DAMN but you people are fucking stupid.

The question is..... Can A&E show that what Phil Robertson said was NOT protected speech.

I don't think they'll test it.

I predict A&E will be forced, by the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, to fold or make such an incredible deal that this thing never goes to Court.

Can you imagine what would come out in 'discovery'?

Wow! the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is scared shitless of a case like this making the rounds in the Court system.

 

[Pogo]

Geez.
The contract for ALL SAG members which the Robertson family have per A & E is the standard contract for all actors and entertainers that every network uses.
It offers protections such as royalties and many other things for actors.
And it contains everything and anything about how the employer can do what they want.
Even without a contract A & E COULD DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO.
They are his boss.
Geez folks, do not like it move to Cuba. Comrade Fidel has made workers all equal in misery there.

I doubt Robertson's a SAG member as a castmember of a TV show which is a finite term. Most likely an IC. SAG would only pertain to fulltime employees of A&E.

Wrong, my daughter is a SAG member and has been in numerous TV shows and the movie The Blind Side.
And she has never been a full time employee of any TV show.
Even if he is not a SAG member the contracts are all the same the networks use. We see them all the time. All the same form contract they all use.

What do you mean 'wrong'? You just affirmed what I said.

 

[KevinWestern]

Better yet:

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

I ask you again, Edge, are individuals allowed to do whatever they want at their place of work so long as it's "related to their religion"? There are no barriers or boundaries at all?

 

[Gadawg73]

A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.

Duck Dynasty IS THE SHOW and A & E owns it.
Was a contract signed for the 2014 season?
But you are right, NO ONE has banned Robertson from anything to do with his religious opinions.

Duck Dynasty is the name of the show and all A&E can possibly own. They can't own the people. They don't own the set. They don't own anything used on the set. The contract was signed in 2010 and runs for five years. It is up for renewal in 2015. It has a year to go. A contract dispute would cover only the remaining year. The episodes for 2014 have already been filmed and Phil is in all of them but the last one. That leaves a single 2014 episode and all of 2015.

Say the entire family says they will not sign another five year contract. They don't have to. That's the end of the show. If they refuse to complete the final year of the contract they are in breach. Any number of things can happen. Phil could say "I've been suspended, now you don't have the right to film on my land or in my house anymore". There's really nothing A&E can do about that. They did suspend him. A&E could let everyone out of their contracts and hire actors to complete the remaining year, then A&E has to supply the set. Unlike most television shows, DD has no guest stars. Did you notice? There are no visitors.

This would not be an easy contract dispute to resolve because A&E really did set up the situation that they used to suspend Phil. This is dealing in bad faith and cause their entire claim of breach to fail. The Robertsons are not without defenses. A&E has a history of trying to change the portrayal of the family and misrepresent themselves. They wanted discussions of God and the exhibition of guns eliminated. The network introduced bleeps to make it appear that profanity was being used. It is alleged that the interview with GQ was a set up to give the network an excuse to punish Robertson. In that case, the suspension itself is illegal!

This could turn into an absolute legal nest of snakes.

Who said they "own the people"?
But if they are under contract for 2014 they own the people for Duck Dynasty and the terms and conditions of that contract to be fulfilled by the people.
Called contract law.